The Instigator
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
duiven
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Deism is more rational than theism:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheMarketLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 99960
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

The resolution is that deism is more rational than theism, Con gets the first argument.
duiven

Con

ur gay so i dnt thnk any of ur argment in valllidid
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

I'm not gay, and even if I was, it would not invalidate my arguments. My opponent is just trolling, and so I will ignore it and proceed to make an argument:
Deism and Theism both agree that there is a God- the difference is that Deists deny revelation whereas Theism is founded upon revelation. Deism is thus more rational than theism because theism consists in the belief in revelation, which requires you to just, without proof, take someones word for it that God talked to them, which is irrational.
duiven

Con

fine ur not gy ur a cucklord
Debate Round No. 2
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

That's not an argument.
duiven

Con

u sure about tht is was good argment
Debate Round No. 3
duiven

Con

hahe i wn this round cucklrod u jst did ... an i am actlly writng smething get owned
Debate Round No. 4
duiven

Con

deism is not more rational than theism because in deism, it is believed that there is one omniscient god who does intervene, and in theism, there is belief in multiple gods. Theism is more rational because of a variety of things. There is a more cultural explanation for theism since practically, it makes more sense. The idea of an all-seeing god that does not intervene accepts the existence of god, but then there is no reason to even have a god. You mentioned how they both accept god, but if deism accepts a god but he doesn't intervene, what's the point? There's no use praying to the god or even relying on him since all he does in watch. It is also a big stretch so say the exact same god controls and sees EVERYTHING. In Theism, the idea that there are different gods that intervene makes much more sense. The different gods have their own specialties and powers, and people can choose which god to pray to depending on them and the situation. Different gods makes the religion more plausible as it makes the heaven seem more realistic. A heaven of different gods that control the universe and listen to you makes more sense than one god who doesn't listen or do anything. If the people choose which god to pray to, then it feels that there is a more individual and personal relationship with heaven, and this makes the people more connected to their religion and ideas. People will feel more connected to their god and therefore the heaven. (sorry for trolling btw)
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con was just a troll who said that Pro was gay and never made any arguments. Conduct to pro because Con was just being homophobic and insulting.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is welcome to award conduct on the basis of insults levied within the debate as long as it is clear how the debater was insulting. Contrary to the report, conduct only votes may be awarded in instances where the debater is awarding points based on behavior within the debate. The conduct only issue regards forfeits.
************************************************************************
Posted by duiven 11 months ago
duiven
im totally winning
Posted by Catholic_Crusader 11 months ago
Catholic_Crusader
Deism is the belief in a supreme being and that that said being doesn't interact with its creation in any way shape or form. It is not that the being can't interact, it is that the being chooses not to. This belief is rubbish, sorry (not really). Theism says that God is omnipotent. Meaning God can do anything that is logically possible. If he were to do something that is logically impossible logic itself would become illogical. According to deism God is bound by the laws of physics, which doesn't seem to make him God at all. The God of deism is stupid. He created a fish bowl that he looks into and that he is even bound too, which makes the diest God even more evil than the Thiest God who actually has a purpose for evil. The God of Deism just sits there watching us as we inevitably die from the expansion and death of our star and the death of our universe as a whole. If the diest God has created such a "perfect" universe then there shouldn't be any evil since "perfect" means someone or something entirely without flaw. The deist God has abondoned us humans to the great evils of our worlds and thus the deist God is, if real, perhaps the cruelest being to have ever existed.

If you would like me to go into furthur depth just ask or kik me at gullman99.
Have a nice day :)
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 11 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
I can always start another one-
Posted by CosmoJarvis 11 months ago
CosmoJarvis
I feel bad for you, MarketLibertarianism, with your debate being trolled and all, but I can't help but laugh.
Posted by DrCereal 11 months ago
DrCereal
The obvious troll is obvious though.
Posted by paintballvet18 11 months ago
paintballvet18
Con is winning on substance in the debate. Pro wins on everything else?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 11 months ago
Theguy1789
TheMarketLibertarianduivenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was just a troll who said that Pro was gay and never made any arguments. Conduct to pro because Con was just being homophobic and insulting.